Abstract
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) higher education offers unique challenges and opportunities to develop effective blended learning practice. Scholarly research by STEM practitioners in designing evidence-based blended learning designs and practice is essential in its educative capacity of supporting STEM academics to reflect upon and develop their learning and teaching practices. The Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model provided a “grass-roots” approach to developing evidence-based practice within STEM. Educational design-based research along with interviews of key innovators has provided Griffith Sciences with valuable lessons and insights which have enabled the group to progress and expand its blended learning design practices now and into the future. Informed by the range of learner-centred designs and practices explored in previous chapters, this final chapter provides nine evidence-based principles and guidelines for developing blended learning designs in STEM higher education. Although these principles have been derived from one implementation of blended learning technology and in one university for STEM higher education courses, it is tentatively proposed that these principles can support other university implementations particularly in developing ePortfolios or personal learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allan, C. N., Campbell, C., & Green, D. M. (2018). Nurturing the budding ideas of STEM academics in a university-wide implementation of PebblePad. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 39–48). Crete, Greece.
Allan, C. N. & Green, D. M. (2018). Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/exlnt/entry/6405/view.
Beatty, B. (2006). Designing the HyFlex world. Paper presented at the 2006 Association for Educational Communication and Technology International Convention, Dallas, TX, USA.
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM Higher Education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3446763.
DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.
Downing, J. J. (2015). Applied learning design in an online teacher-education course. PhD Thesis.
Eynon, B. & Gambino, L. M. (2017). High-impact ePorfolio practice: A catalyst for student, faculty, and institutional learning. Virginia, US: Stylus Publishing.
Foote, K., Knaub, A., Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Beichner, R. J. (2016). Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.010103.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Froyd, J. E., Henderson, C., Cole, R. S., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Stanford, C. (2017). From dissemination to propagation: A new paradigm for education developers. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(4), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1357098.
Guardia, Maina, & Sangra. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1–6.
Hains-Wesson, R., & Tytler, R. (2015). A perspective on supporting STEM academics with blended learning at an Australian university. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 460–479.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439.
Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Vancouver, Canada,
Herrington, J., Herrington, A., & Mantei, J. (2009). Design principles for mobile learning. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education (pp. 129–138). Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong.
Herrington, J., Mantei, J., Herrington, A., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2008). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile technologies and new ways of teaching and learning. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ASCILITE Melbourne 2008. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/herrington-j.pdf.
Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_5.
Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., & Stanford, C. (2016). Designing for sustained adoption: A model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 10112. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010112.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(25), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0092-1.
Legon, R. (2015). Measuring the impact of the Quality Matters RubricTM: A discussion of possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.1058114.
McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.
National Academies of Sciences. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts and cultures. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Overton, T., & Johnson, L. (2016). Evidence based practice in learning and teaching for STEM disciplines. Melbourne: Australian Council of Deans of Science.
Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating E-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York: Routledge.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century, 27, 1–15.
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Educational Design Research, 1(3), 52–66.
Rich, J. (2016). Employability: Degrees of value. I worked hard to get where I am today (An unemployed graduate with £50,000 of debt). HEPI Occasional Paper 12.
Roberts, P. (2018). Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: Design principles for further implementation. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989.
Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recommendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in Higher Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 22–33.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001025.
Smith, K., & Hill, J. (2018). Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1517732.
Sutherland, S., Brotchie, J., & Chesney, S. (2011). Pebblegogy: Ideas and activities to inspire and engage learners. Pebble Learning Limited, e-Innovative Centre: University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1107/s10648-010-9128-5.
Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2013). Beyond blended learning: A case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.003.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Massachusetts, United States: Harvard Business School.
Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268.
Yorke, M., & Knight, P. T. (2006). Embedding employability into the curriculum. Higher Education Academy.
Acknowledgements
The Griffith Sciences Blended Learning team would like to acknowledge all of the exceptional learning and teaching staff who participated in the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model in 2017 and 2018 including all of the authors in this book. Their dedication and hard work have resulted in some excellent learning and teaching practices embedded across STEM disciplines.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allan, C.N., Crough, J., Green, D., Brent, G. (2019). Designing Rich, Evidence-Based Learning Experiences in STEM Higher Education. In: Allan, C., Campbell, C., Crough, J. (eds) Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6981-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6982-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)